From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@linaro.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work raise
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 19:41:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140512174130.GA6127@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140512171729.GD13467@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 06:26:49PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 09:56:50AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 01:33:53AM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > We are going to extend irq work to support remote queuing.
> > > >
> > > > So lets add a cpu argument to arch_irq_work_raise(). The architectures
> > > > willing to support that must then provide the backend to raise irq work
> > > > IPIs remotely.
> > > >
> > > > Initial support is provided for x86 and ARM since they are easily
> > > > extended. The other archs that overwrite arch_irq_work_raise() seem
> > > > to use local clock interrupts and therefore need deeper rewrite of their
> > > > irq work support to implement remote raising.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Why not borrow the smp_call_function IPI for the remote bits? We could
> > > limit the 'safe from NMI' to the local works. And we validate this by
> > > putting a WARN_ON(in_nmi()) in irq_work_queue_on().
> >
> > Right, but although I don't need it to be safe from NMI, I need it
> > to be callable concurrently and when irqs are disabled.
> >
> > So we can't use smp_call_function_single() for that. But we can use the async
> > version in which case we must keep the irq work claim. But that's
> > about the same than smp_queue_function_single() we had previously
> > and we are back with our csd_lock issue.
>
> Who said anything about using smp_call_function_single()?
Ah shortcutting, doesn't look bad indeed.
>
>
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index a82170e2fa78..2fc9d8ece05a 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,8 @@ void __weak arch_irq_work_raise(void)
> *
> * Can be re-enqueued while the callback is still in progress.
> */
> -bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> +static __always_inline bool
> +__irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> {
> /* Only queue if not already pending */
> if (!irq_work_claim(work))
> @@ -78,16 +79,31 @@ bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> * for the next tick.
> */
> if (!(work->flags & IRQ_WORK_LAZY) || tick_nohz_tick_stopped()) {
> - if (!this_cpu_cmpxchg(irq_work_raised, 0, 1))
> - arch_irq_work_raise();
> + if (cmpxchg(&__get_cpu_var(irq_work_raised, 0, 1) == 0)) {
> + if (cpu == smp_processor_id() || cpu == -1)
> + arch_irq_work_raise();
> + else
> + arch_send_call_function_single_ipi();
> + }
Ok that needs some more tuning with the raised flag and the destination list
to pick, but I get the idea.
> }
>
> preempt_enable();
>
> return true;
> }
> +
> +bool irq_work_queue(struct irq_work *work)
> +{
> + return __irq_work_queue_on(work, -1);
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(irq_work_queue);
>
> +bool irq_work_queue_on(struct irq_work *work, int cpu)
> +{
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi());
> + return __irq_work_queue_on(work, cpu);
> +}
> +
> bool irq_work_needs_cpu(void)
> {
> struct llist_head *this_list;
> diff --git a/kernel/smp.c b/kernel/smp.c
> index 06d574e42c72..0fd53963c4fb 100644
> --- a/kernel/smp.c
> +++ b/kernel/smp.c
> @@ -198,6 +198,12 @@ void generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt(void)
> csd->func(csd->info);
> csd_unlock(csd);
> }
> +
> + /*
> + * First run the synchronous callbacks, people are waiting on them;
> + * then run the async ones.
> + */
> + irq_work_run();
> }
Alright, I'm reiterating with that.
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-12 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-11 23:33 [RFC PATCH 0/5] nohz: Move nohz kick out of scheduler IPI, v3 Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] irq_work: Architecture support for remote irq work raise Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12 0:08 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-12 3:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2014-05-12 16:29 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12 7:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-12 16:26 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-12 17:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-05-12 17:41 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] irq_work: Force non-lazy works on IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] irq_work: Allow remote queueing Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] nohz: Move full nohz kick to its own IPI Frederic Weisbecker
2014-05-11 23:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] nohz: Use IPI implicit full barrier against rq->nr_running r/w Frederic Weisbecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140512174130.GA6127@localhost.localdomain \
--to=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=khilman@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox